Pre-order your copy of Sidney’s new book now! Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (Brown Books 2014) has a publication date of May 1.

A gruesome suicide, a likely murder, a tragic and needless plane crash, wrongful imprisonment, and gripping courtroom scenes draw readers into this compelling story, giving them a frightening perspective on justice corrupted and who should be accountable when evidence is withheld.

Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice is the true story of the strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics used by headline-grabbing federal prosecutors in their narcissistic pursuit of power.

Its scope reaches from the US Department of Justice to the US Senate, the FBI, and the White House. This true story is a scathing attack on corrupt prosecutors, the judges who turned a blind eye to these injustices, and the president who has promoted them to powerful political positions.

Sidney Powell spoke on a panel for the Federalist Society annual meeting in November in Washington D.C. on the topic of Prosecutorial Misconduct. Ms. Powell also spoke on a panel for the Appellate Judges Education Institute in New Orleans in November on the topic of Oral Argument-Non-Verbal Communication.

Founded by Sidney Powell in 2002 and modeled after a similar program at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, the Loaves & Fishes charitable gift market has raised approximately $200,000 for Asheville charities.

The government finally dropped its prosecution of Nigerian Barge defendant James A. Brown. Here’s part of the WSJ story by John Emshwiller:

At the 2004 trial, prosecutors alleged that Enron’s sale of an interest in three power-producing barges, located off the coast of Nigeria, to Merrill was a sham that allowed the energy company to illegally book a profit. Prosecutors said the deal wasn’t legitimate because Enron had promised to take Merrill out of the deal within six months at a predetermined profit. This guarantee meant that Merrill was never at risk, so Enron couldn’t legally treat the deal as a sale. The four Merrill defendants, who went to prison in 2005, maintained they did nothing illegal.

The barge case was widely viewed as an effort by the government to send a message to the financial community about acceptable and unacceptable conduct in helping major corporations structure their finances. It was also viewed as an early test case for the Justice Department’s Enron Task Force, which eventually secured more than a dozen guilty pleas from former Enron officials. Its work culminated in the 2006 fraud and conspiracy convictions of former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay and former president Jeffrey Skilling. Mr. Lay died shortly after of heart-related problems and Mr. Skilling is still appealing his conviction and 24-year prison sentence.

There was, in fact, never much to this overheated case other than a frenzy to hang everybody connected with Enron. The evidence of the buyback agreement at the heart of the prosecution’s case was flimsy at best, as was its “honest services” theory, which the Supreme Court recently rejected in the Skilling and Black cases. The Fifth Circuit overturned the defendants’ fraud and conspiracy convictions in 2006 after they had spent a year in jail.

The government, however, hasn’t let go of Brown, whose perjury and obstruction convictions continued to stand. And Brown has alleged prosecutorial misconduct for withholding exculpatory evidence. As recently as last Friday, the government sought a continuance while Brown appealed his remaining charges.

Emshwiller concludes:

Mr. Brown’s attorneys vehemently opposed a continuance. In a filing, they said they had recently contacted key government witnesses from the 2004 trial, who told them they hadn’t heard from the government—in one case for years. Such lack of preparation “suggests that the government has been using the court to run an outrageous ‘bluff’….for the improper purpose of continuing to harass and persecute Brown and threaten his liberty,” the filing said.

The WSJ Law Blog comments: “On Wednesday, the whole thing went poof, much like Enron.” The government had no comment.

I’ve been covering this abortive prosecution along with the rest of the Enron miscarriage of justice for five years. But rather than citing my posts, it’s more fitting to link to Tom Kirkendall, who has been all over this case. For example, four years ago Tom excerpts the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in this case and concludes by describing the Nigerian Barge case as “based on resentment and scapegoating, not on justice or any reasonable concept of prosecutorial discretion. * * *If you don’t believe me, just ask Jim and Nancy Brown.”

It was fitting Emshwiller got today’s byline, because his career-making award-winning journalism (2002 Gerald Loeb award for beat reporting), capped with a book, started the “whole thing” that “went poof.” Too bad for Brown he can’t get his life back, and for Tom that there’s no Loeb award for unmaking scandals.

The government filed a Motion to Dismiss – with prejudice – charges against James A. Brown on Counts One, Two, and Three. The former Merrill Lynch banker had been charged as part of the Enron Barge case. An appeal on the motion for a new trial on Counts IV and V remains.

This has been a case that has a long history with claims of discovery violations on the part of the Enron Task Force. The defense had argued that “[a]fter Brown’s trial and appeal, a new prosecutor finally produced the government’s notes of multiple conversations with Fastow, the grand jury testimony of Merrill counsel, and other Brady material – all which proves Brown’s innocence on all charges.” here

The original case was discussed on this blog back in 2005. And a lot has happened since the sentencing of back then.

What is interesting now is that it takes the government until today to dismiss these counts – with a trial date that had been set for September 20th. Is it really necessary to wait right up to the trial date to dismiss? One can only imagine the costs to the defense of preparing for trial?

June 30 (Bloomberg) — R. Allen Stanford, indicted for allegedly swindling investors out of more than $7 billion, must remain in U.S. custody until his trial, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner in Houston rejected Stanford’s claims that he wanted to face and fight the charges against him.

“The court determines that Stanford is a serious flight risk and there is no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release that will reasonably assure his appearance as required for trial,” Hittner said today in a 13-page ruling posted on the court’s Web site.

“We are very disappointed, and we will appeal to the Fifth Circuit,” Stanford’s lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said in a phone interview following the ruling. He didn’t indicate how fast he could file the appeal to the appellate court in New Orleans.

“We think the judge made the correct ruling,” Ian McCaleb, a Justice Department spokesman, said in a phone interview.

Now that Hittner has labeled Stanford a flight risk, the appellate court is unlikely to free him before trial, according to a lawyer who specializes in federal appeals.

“Whoever wins in the district court will most likely prevail in the Fifth Circuit,” Washington lawyer Sidney Powell, who has argued cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, said in a phone interview. “There’s just a lot of deference to the district court’s decision on the bond issue.”

County Jail

Stanford, 59, is incarcerated in the Montgomery County jail in Conroe, about an hour north of Houston. He wasn’t brought to the Houston courthouse today, as he was on the preceding three days while the hearing was in progress.

Alfredo Perez, a spokesman for the marshal’s service in Houston, didn’t immediately respond to a request for information on whether the financier will remain in the county jail or will be transferred to a federal prison facility until trial.

DeGuerin told Stacy it will take about a year to prepare for Stanford’s trial, which could last six months.

Stanford has been in U.S. custody since June 18, when he was indicted on 21 counts by a federal grand jury in Houston.

He’s accused of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction and money laundering in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme involving certificates of deposit sold by Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

Denies Allegations

The criminal charges mirror allegations made in a civil enforcement lawsuit filed against the financier and two business associates by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in February.

Stanford has denied all allegations of criminal and civil wrongdoing. “I’m not a damn swindler,” he told Bloomberg News in an April 20 interview.

Hittner’s decision reverses a June 25 order granting Stanford bail. U.S. Magistrate Judge Frances Stacy had set bail at $500,000, confined Stanford to a Houston apartment he shares with his fiancée, and ordered him to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

Stacy stayed her ruling to allow prosecutors to challenge it before Hittner, who outranks her in the federal judicial hierarchy.

Hittner heard arguments from attorneys for both sides at a hearing yesterday. Hop-Scotching the Globe

Prosecutors yesterday urged Hittner to revoke bail, arguing that Stanford’s dual citizenship and lifestyle of “hop- scotching the globe,” would make it easy for him to become a fugitive.

“That’s been Mr. Stanford’s life for the last 15 years,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregg Costa told the judge.

DeGuerin told the judge that Stanford has been willing to fight the charges.

“True, Mr. Stanford has traveled the world, but there’s nothing suspicious about that travel,” DeGuerin said. “The vast majority has been business-related and recorded” on federal aviation logs.

Stanford holds dual citizenship in the U.S. and Antigua and his U.S. passport shows he visited more than 30 countries on five continents since 2005, Hittner said in his ruling. The financier routinely traveled by private jet or helicopter.

“Testimony indicated these flights were often scheduled at the last minute and steps were taken to conceal Stanford’s whereabouts,” the judge wrote.

Ties to Houston

Forensic accountants working for the court-appointed receiver in the regulatory case filed against Stanford have been unable to account for about $1.1 billion in investor deposits with the Stanford bank, the judge said.

Hittner also described Stanford’s ties to Houston as “tenuous at best and of recent vintage.”

Prosecutors said if convicted, Stanford faces up to 375 years in prison.

“The severity of the potential sentence weighs heavily in favor of detention,” the judge said in his ruling.

Houston lawyer Michael Stanley, who represents more than 100 Stanford investors and former Stanford brokers, was surprised by Hittner’s decision.

“This was a man who had tried multiple times to turn himself in,” Stanley said in a phone interview. “It’s hard to believe there was flight risk from a man who was hiding in plain sight.

“For the investors and financial advisers, this will make it harder to get answers, because what we really want to understand is what happened and why it happened,” Stanley said. “It will be harder to do that with the judge in Dallas refusing to hold public hearings and now the key witness is locked up in jail.”

The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew M. Harris in Chicago at aharris16@bloomberg.net; Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston federal court at 6648 or laurel@calkins.us.com.